Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Wounded soldiers given false personality disorder
Topic Started: Apr 7 2007, 07:20 AM (978 Views)
TheSmashedGuitar
Member Avatar
Love Will Tear Us Apart, Again
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070409/kors




In essence, they are given a diagnosis of a preexisting personality disorder so that they can be stripped of eligibility for medical benefits as soldiers and vets.

This is despite the fact that their issues are clearly borne of battlefield trauma, both physical and mental.

This is just the latest in a long line of terrible shit coming out of a military floundering under the command of the present administration, and it underscores the hollowness of platitudes like "support the troops" when not actually practiced competently, without this sort of miserly ingratitude.

Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Keith Moon
Member Avatar
Moon the Loon
That is FUCKED UP. I always wanted to join the military, but they won't let me because of asthma (although I'm in far better shape than most people). Support the troops.
My friends call me Keith, but you can call me John.

I was a rust repairer.
I was a rust repairer and full-time survivor.
I survived all the major earthquakes, and the Titanic, and several air crashes.



Out here in the fields
I fight for my meals.


Posted Image

I Don't Mind Other Guys Dancing With My Girl.
That's fine. I know them all pretty well.
But I know sometimes I must get out in the light.
Better leave her behind with the kids, they're alright.
The kids are alright.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Conducting Sexual Congress
Member Avatar
Fuck the poeleece!
First Gulf War Syndrome, now this? This doesn't exactly surprise me, but damn, is that horrible.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
otlset
Member Avatar
Dear Prudence
I'd like to give some perspective on this, in my opinion an agenda-driven hack-job on the VA, the military, and by the usual inference the current administration.

The casual unsuspecting reader, no doubt by the author's design and intent, will come away from this story thinking how badly our vets are treated, and how the government in general doesn't care about people, just saving money.

However, suspicious as I am at the motives of a new, activist generation of journalists, nourtured in liberal universities with correspondingly activist instructors, I read things more in depth.

In the article you link to, it states the Fort Carson audiologist who tested Jon Town's hearing diagnosed his hearing loss as "functional (non-organic) hearing loss." The author mentioned this without further clarification. In fact, "functional (non-organic) hearing loss" means he was malingering, or faking the loss. This casts all kinds of aspersions on the entire intent of the article. If he tried to fake his audiological exam, then it's possible to assume he was less than truthful with some of the other complaints the story highlights.

My point here is not to suggest the health-care system for veterans is perfect, far from it by most accounts. My point is actually a journalistic one -- don't believe what you read in today's media without caution. They're out there, trying to manipulate YOU with dishonest or incomplete reporting. Most here know I've complained about this before. Question authority!
Posted Image
Vermeer rocks!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheSmashedGuitar
Member Avatar
Love Will Tear Us Apart, Again
In light of the other recent vet scandals however, such as the one at Walter Reed, and this government's tendency to keep things on the down low makes me have faith in it.

I think it's funny what some people find believeable not-believeable.


"What? The government is using its powers for corrupt finanical gain? Pfft, don't go off living in fantasy land."

"What? You mean pumping sewage into the ocean is HURTING it? What a laugh!"

Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Conducting Sexual Congress
Member Avatar
Fuck the poeleece!
Otlset has a point, though. I'm surprised I didn't catch that.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheSmashedGuitar
Member Avatar
Love Will Tear Us Apart, Again
Actually nonorganic hearing loss Does not mean "lying" It actually means hearing loss that is unexplained... which can rather easily be decided to mean caused by a psychological issue, rather than a physical one. Which goes well with the main point of the article, which is that instead of treating soldiers' physical injuries, they're discharging them... SUPPOSEDLY honorably, but without any way to pay for the injuries that they really have.

This is the sort of response I expect when someone is reallllly realllllly stretching for a way to cast aspersions on an article. It's .. based on a misunderstanding of audiology which is immediately translated -- by assumption -- into dishonesty.

It's setting a clear pattern of preconceptual bias in skepticism, so it's a worrisome passage to be the meat of the idea that this article is a(n) 'agenda-driven hack-job.'

Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
otlset
Member Avatar
Dear Prudence
TheSmashedGuitar
Apr 11 2007, 03:52 AM
Actually nonorganic hearing loss Does not mean "lying" It actually means hearing loss that is unexplained... which can rather easily be decided to mean caused by a psychological issue, rather than a physical one. Which goes well with the main point of the article, which is that instead of treating soldiers' physical injuries, they're discharging them... SUPPOSEDLY honorably, but without any way to pay for the injuries that they really have.

This is the sort of response I expect when someone is reallllly realllllly stretching for a way to cast aspersions on an article. It's .. based on a misunderstanding of audiology which is immediately translated -- by assumption -- into dishonesty.

It's setting a clear pattern of preconceptual bias in skepticism, so it's a worrisome passage to be the meat of the idea that this article is a(n) 'agenda-driven hack-job.'

Functional hearing loss can be either attributed to willfully faking the loss (on a conscious level), or psychogenic in extreme and very rare cases (stemming from an unconscious level). In any case, there is no physical reason for the hearing loss.

In the audiological reference "Hearing Assessment", William F. Rintelmann gives a good overview of this. "If the individual (child or adult) is purposefully exhibiting symptoms of impaired hearing, the problem is often labeled malingering, feigning, or is sometimes called simulated hearing loss. If, however, the origin of the problem is on an unconscious level, the disorder often is termed hysterical or psychogenic hearing loss or deafness" from "Hearing Assessment", edited by William Rintelmann, Ph.D., University Park Press, Baltimore.

He goes on to further state "The only definitive statement that can be made concerning the incidence of pseudohypacusis is that it is highly variable depending upon the population being examined. Incidence is closely linked to potential causative factors. Hence these two topics are discussed together. A review of the literature on this topic strongly suggests that the highest incidence figures have been reported in those special populations of adults in which decibels of hearing loss could be translated into dollars of compensation" (all italics are his).

This is the view that is overlooked in the original article. That is, unfortunately, MANY vets are less than honest, and see a way to get disability checks from the government for the rest of their lives. So they try to fake disabilities. Despite the sympathetic slant of the original article, because of Town's discrepancies in his hearing exam, I remain suspicious. And I still believe the article was an agenda-driven hack-job.
Posted Image
Vermeer rocks!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Robosteve
Member Avatar
My Sweet Lord
I am always suspicious of articles like these. That is not to say that I dismiss them as fabricated, but I am suspicious as to the accuracy of their content.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
otlset
Member Avatar
Dear Prudence
sjmcd
Apr 11 2007, 08:46 AM
I am always suspicious of articles like these. That is not to say that I dismiss them as fabricated, but I am suspicious as to the accuracy of their content.

Good. Everybody should be.
Posted Image
Vermeer rocks!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shminking Of Gin
Member Avatar
As if he's never seen one b4.
Its good to know that we really do care about those who risk their lives, just so we dont have to face east 5 times a day, live under communist rule, have free speech, so that I (as a women) dont have to hide in a tent all my life.....ect. Ya, good to know that they care.
<center>Posted Image</center>
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheSmashedGuitar
Member Avatar
Love Will Tear Us Apart, Again
Because you find one thing, that may or may not imply lying (but which you obviously immediately assume must mean lying), you dismiss this entire article as an "agenda-driven hack job"?

Is there anything else about this article rather than your jumping to conclusions over an elusive reading of a single phrase?

If this is all you have, do you really think you're convincing anyone you didn't just see an article negative to the conservative mindset and think "agenda-driven hack job"?

You don't even go so far as to link your conclusion to the rest of the facts in the article. Even if you are right, which I don't agree with, there's a lot more article to look through that you haven't so much as mentioned. Should we really dismiss all the other facts present because one word wasn't defined to your satisfaction?

Also, I was going to ask about the fact that a rocket blew up two feet over the guy's head - and that is (Ipresume) the reason the soldier maintains that he is now deaf in one ear, and has a 50% hearing loss in the other. I'm surprised he has _any_ hearing...and if he were going to fake it anyway, why only 50% in one ear? Why not totally deaf in both?

Yes, one article could be a hack job. It could be that every single vet and relative interviewed for that article (remember, it talks about more than one) could be lying, and could be lying about the same doctor. But there are now many articles about the Bush administration cutting funding for veteran's benefits, and now articles about abysmal care given to vets in walter reed. There are also many articles about vets suffering ptsd, and receiving insufficient care for same. So this is not an isolated article, it's fitting into a general pattern.

Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
otlset
Member Avatar
Dear Prudence
TheSmashedGuitar
Apr 11 2007, 04:33 PM
Because you find one thing, that may or may not imply lying (but which you obviously immediately assume must mean lying), you dismiss this entire article as an "agenda-driven hack job"?

Is there anything else about this article rather than your jumping to conclusions over an elusive reading of a single phrase?

If this is all you have, do you really think you're convincing anyone you didn't just see an article negative to the conservative mindset and think "agenda-driven hack job"?

You don't even go so far as to link your conclusion to the rest of the facts in the article. Even if you are right, which I don't agree with, there's a lot more article to look through that you haven't so much as mentioned. Should we really dismiss all the other facts present because one word wasn't defined to your satisfaction?

Also, I was going to ask about the fact that a rocket blew up two feet over the guy's head - and that is (Ipresume) the reason the soldier maintains that he is now deaf in one ear, and has a 50% hearing loss in the other. I'm surprised he has _any_ hearing...and if he were going to fake it anyway, why only 50% in one ear? Why not totally deaf in both?

Yes, one article could be a hack job. It could be that every single vet and relative interviewed for that article (remember, it talks about more than one) could be lying, and could be lying about the same doctor. But there are now many articles about the Bush administration cutting funding for veteran's benefits, and now articles about abysmal care given to vets in walter reed. There are also many articles about vets suffering ptsd, and receiving insufficient care for same. So this is not an isolated article, it's fitting into a general pattern.

Yes, if I find one thing in an advocacy story that may contradict or indicate ulterior motives contrary to the story's intent, then the entire list of the claims in the story is suspect. Especially if there is the possibility that the author of the piece either:

1) Was too lazy to research the meaning of "functional (non-organic) hearing
loss" and how it might affect the credibility of the subject's claims, or worse

2) Knew what functional hearing loss is yet willfully omitted it as it didn't
support the thesis of his article.

As soon as I started reading the article, from its one-sided tone and slant, my suspicions were aroused. Nowhere is it mentioned about how many vets actually
feign disabilities to get government benefits, and there was also little mention in terms of a balance to the story about the great good things the VA tries to do for vets, or how many vets get excellent care and many VA employees are doing their best at their jobs, shackeled by a monstrously cumbersome bureaucracy as they are, to care for the vets who gave of themselves for the country.

I can speak with some authority on the subject, as I have had some training in the field in college, and am friends with an audiologist who works in the same medical complex as I do. He told me he used to actually do some of the VA audiological evaluations for this area in determining disability. He said he did it for about a year then quit in disillusionment as he gradually realized that in reality, instead of merely testing hearing, he was acting as a gatekeeper for weeding out those who tried to fake a loss to get on government disability. He told me in his estimation about 30% of those he tested were trying to falsify threshold levels (by just not responding to test-tones and other speech testing procedures), which gradually demoralized him.

He also mentioned about the possibility of reprisals from unstable and perhaps violence-prone vets who he caught fudging. I've seen some vets who look REALLY unstable, like they've just emerged from the jungles of Vietnam. "HE"S the guy who kept me from my pension! I'll get even with HIM..." Who wants that kind of worry? So he no longer does them.

By the way, he also said functional hearing loss is a professional, non-accusatory way of basically saying the subject is faking it. Any other type of functional loss is very rare, and the person will have many other real psychological problems that accompany it. But any person who is rational, as Jon Town seems to be, is able to understand that when a tone is heard, you push the button, even and especially for the softest tones. A good audiologist is rarely fooled.

And in regards to his claim of a concussive rocket explosion over his head, I would say it could definitely have devastated his hearing. But as in all cases, individual cases may vary. It is possible his hearing was not severely damaged. That's why testing is done, to assess such damage. In this case, the audiologist suspected malingering. It IS possible the audiologist was either incompetent, or had some other agenda that prevented an accurate unbiased test result, but there is no word of additonal audiological testing done as is routine in such cases. Since it wasn't brought to light, I would assume it was done with the same result.
Posted Image
Vermeer rocks!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheSmashedGuitar
Member Avatar
Love Will Tear Us Apart, Again
Your source text is apparently 28 years old. A quick search of NIH's PubMed website gives a slew of information on response-related diagnosis of functional vs. simulated hearing loss. Apparently the field of audiology has made a few advancements.

Look here's one from 1977.

You are as wrong about this as when you claimed that the listed diagnosis was proof positive of 'malingering/faking the loss.'

The diagnosis does not work that way and even a very simple consultation of sources which are not older than I am would have easily shown this.

At this point, a single area of contention is being cherrypicked to dismiss fair consideration of the article, essentially a classic sign that there's a conscious attempt to dismiss the implications of the article's content. Except in this case, the single point being used for this intent is not actually a fair contention and the grounds for labeling the work an 'agenda driven hack job' don't even stand on their own merit, much less as a justification for junking the article's credibility in total.

Here's the clencher, fella: You are entrenching your mistaken view on the encapsulation of functional non-organic hearing and you are doing so using irrelevant and outdated medical citation.

To gloss the issue over again (as this has already been covered): When a hearing loss is listed as "functional (non-organic)" this only means that there was an outside cause of the hearing loss, in the form of an event and/or environmental complication. The soldier's loss is not listed as an organic cause of functional hearing loss since it was not related to age, disease, or other internal complication. It was related to a battlefield injury.

This means that the diagnosis is not saying that the patient is feigning hearing loss, or suffering it due to psychosomatic/psychogenic issues.. It is actually saying that the hearing loss is actually a complication from an exterior event.

Such as, say, the shock impact of a rocket blowing up two feet away from his head. The inner ear damage that can result from such an exterior trauma would be listed as -- surprise! -- functional non-organic hearing loss.

Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheSmashedGuitar
Member Avatar
Love Will Tear Us Apart, Again
Also,

Quote:
 
"Yes, if I find one thing in an advocacy story that may contradict or indicate ulterior motives contrary to the story's intent,


You are not paying attention. Your 'one thing' that 'contradicted or indicated ulterior motive' was actually a completely bogus charge, and we need to back up to that.

If you don't start trying to fix that, then you are plunging forward on a completely broken premise.

Quote:
 
1) Was too lazy to research the meaning of "functional (non-organic) hearing
loss" and how it might affect the credibility of the subject's claims, or worse

2) Knew what functional hearing loss is yet willfully omitted it as it didn't
support the thesis of his article.


You are mystifying me at this point. Neither of these charges follow, since (A) functional hearing loss does support the thesis of the article, and (B) the author reported the soldier's diagnosis correctly.

But wow! You have a friend who is trained in audiology and worked for the VA! What are the chances you'd have an expert on hand? Man, I'm speechless. I take back everything I've said about how nothing I've found online - from professional medical sources or otherwise - can corroborate his definition of functional hearing loss as being currently the accepted definition. Before, I was skeptical because everything pointed to him being wrong, even medical journals, ebsco and proquest (you know, the databases that let you search things like research journals), but now I'm a believer - because you know a guy who's actually done it all! You doesn't even need to cite sources we can review, because you know a guy!

I just wonder why you didn't mention this friend before the antiquated reference guide... not that I'm questioning, mind you, but I just read an almost identical article to the one being questioned in the US News & World Report and I'm worried because I haven't been able to muster the feelings of disappointment and outrage that I know are appropriate to feel since you know a guy.


Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The News Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply